WAIRARAPA v. WELLINGTON. WELLINGTON, August 16.

Otago Witness, Volume 23, Issue 2684, 23 August 1905, Page 58

WAIRARAPA v. WELLINGTON. WELLINGTON, August 16.

In terms of the challenge calling on. Wellington to defend its title as holder of the JUanfurly Shield, the Wairarapa Rugby team arrived in Wellington to-day, and in the Jtfternoon met the home team on the Athletic- Park, between GOO and 900 people (assembling to witness the contest. The ground, owing to the heavy rain which fell iover-nighf, was in a very bad state. Anything like decent back play was practically out of the question. The forwards did a liea-p of work in the mud and slush, and it says a great deal for the visiting team that lit succeeded in making a draw of the fixture, each side scoring 3 points. Wellington accordingly retain possessioai of the shield. Spankman (Wairarapa) and HardUiam (Wellington) each scored tries. Wrigley (a WaiTarapa three-quarter) played the best game on the ground.

EXPENSES OF FOOTBALL TEAMS. CHRISTCHURCH, August 15. During th© recent visit to Ohristchureh fcf the Homeward bound New Zealand .football team the local Rugby Union incurred certain expenses in the way of refreshments, »ab fares, luggage freight, etc. The -•accounts were forwarded in the usual course Ito the New Zealand Rugby Union at Wellington,- but tbe head body -disallowed £4 6s of the sundries account, deducted that amount from the Canterbury Union's share of the match proceeds, and declared over 200 "shoxits" were involved in the amount Expended. The matter oame before the comonittee of the Canterbury Union to-nigbt, when some very uncomplimentary remarks Jwere made about tbe New Zealand Union. sPhe chairman said the team was in Christjshurch four days, and no arrangement was fcnade by the New Zealand Union as to the Amount to be expended on their entertainment, and members of the team were allowed to wander around Christohurch with nothing to do. Some of the local executive Jfcook the matter" in hand and tried to Vnak© the tim© pass pleasantly for I)he footballers. The whole cost of that hospitality Was only £i 6s. Several members who had incurred expenditure in entertaining the •team volunteered to pay the amounts themJselves rather than allow the Canterbury lUnion to be held responsible. A motion was earned unanimously objecting to the frerfusal of the New Zealand Union to pay the disputed amount, and affirming that j£ the refusal be adhered to the committee would decline in future to entertain any team visiting Christohurob. under the Jnispiees of the New Zealand Union.